The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREDfergusonph34 COPY 7 COUNCI L EI-GAe--c m C2'AGAG r- 0'ATTORNEYQ-CLf RK/OPi G 0 DEPT HEADSR's. -1714 6 kll tJG~a Stocrry ac--eve Could you please urgently pass on this email to Council members in relation to item 3 o n tonight's agenda regarding codifying rainwater harvesting legislatio n From :Jenny Ferguson [mailto :jennylferg@gmail .com ] Sent :Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10 :58 A M To :'klichtig@slocity .org ' Subject :FW : ARCSA guidelines being made mandatory a bad idea CCDD DI R FIN DI R 2-FIRE CHIE FCAW DI M G .- CLICE CH FC!J-MEC DI R WT IL DI R ,e Dear Council member s PIs find attached the email from myself to Tim Girvin regarding proposed code changes you wil l be examining tonight . I am out of state and am unable to attend but hope you may take int o consideration my written comments . One of the most difficult things with having the Chief Building Inspector developing the code i s that the public consultation process may be impinged upon by fear from participants o f retribution when they put in their next permit application if they speak out against aspects . I know this is a difficult situation for the city as I expect Tim is best equipped with the city's limited resources to head this process . All members of the committee involved in this proces s regularly interact with SLO building department - which is to be expected if they have expertis e on the topic . If legislation is overly prescriptive the result is likely to be a flourishing of illega l systems . (as California experienced with greywater systems where, until the rolled the cod e back recently, the stats were : 1 .7 million illegal Californian greywater systems) It would also b e difficult politically to 'crack down' on something as important to the environment as rainwate r harvesting by prosecuting 'illegals'. This makes for an environment where legislation should b e very carefully developed and the creating of a matrix of guidelines combined with code i s crucial . I can speak with some authority on this topic as one of my specialties in my career i n Australia was developing legislation as a policy person, and it is a chief area of my academi c studies . Some core issues which make this proposed code change unworkable : •The ARCSA guidelines which Tim is asking be codified as mandatory are 38 pages long . Imagine the permitting process! They are meant as guidelines, not to be codified a s legislation . I spoke yesterday with one of the co-authors of the document about th e situation in SLO and he confirmed the inappropriateness of codifying the guidelines . Hi s direct contact (Tim Pope) is 360 317 4192 - he will be teaching a workshop throughou t the day but you may be able to reach him . He plans to call Tim directly to discuss . •The big difference between guidelines and code is that guidelines are broad and no t meant to be prescribed for all situations . Legislation should be highly specific an d limited to dealing with 'actual issues' and needs . There are many specific instances I could bring up as problematic with the ARCSA guidelines, but to limit myself to a couple : o '3 .3 .2 . All cistern openings shall be protected from unintentional entry ..manhol e covers shall be provided .' Manhole covers will not work in most installations . A n example of where it will not work at all is if you have a bladder cistern (like a large plastic bag that lies under your house '3-3-2 . _lined metal' is prescribed to stop algae growth . A galvanized steel tan k is opaque without a liner . Sunlight does not penetrate which is a concern fo r RED FILE MEETING AGEND A DATE /9 0 ITEM #P1[3 RECEIVED ° OCT 19 2010 SLO CITY CLERK algae growth . This would require rainwater harvesters to install a costly an d expensive liner for no scientific reason . • There was significant input from constituents against limiting unpermitted RH S installations to less than 250 gallons in the public consultation process (there was just a week to get back to Tim). The guidelines Tim has drawn from recommend the mor e typical 5000 gallons as the limit . In summary, the reasons given by Tim for 'th e committee' deciding on the 250 gallon limit were in my opinion weak, not based o n scientific data or based on false assumptions . I had strongly encouraged discussio n between Tim and other jurisdictions to look at the topic with others looking after th e same public interests and safety matters as him . It was only after the public commen t against the 250 gallon proposal that Tim told me he had contacted local counties t o discuss the limit . No-one San Francisco and up was talked with . I gleaned from m y conversation yesterday with Tim that the major premise for retaining the limit was s o that the city could have enough control over placement of large tanks such as h e described occurs in Marin county so that the city could stop residents putting larg e tanks in their front yard . Regulating for aesthetics in people's front yards is highly politically charged . I don't imagine SLO residents would look at that kind of intrusio n lightly . Safety issues, yes . The building department's opinion as to what is aestheticall y pleasing ..that is a can of worms I would not like to see the city open . How in the worl d would you regulate that fairly? Tim is suggesting a blanket ban on large cisterns in fron t yards . Many situations might be more than appropriate for situating tanks in tha t situation . I have attached a picture of a residence where I grew up that is a typical larg e tank in a front yard situation . I respectfully ask Council to not support the proposal being presented by the City tonight . A s discussed in email below to Tim, making changes retrospectively is highly problematic (th e proposition that anything is better than nothing is not sound). This does not meet the state d needs that drove this process (facilitating implementation of the Awahnee principles, stoppin g the Building department from rejecting applications for flushing toilets with rainwater on th e basis of 'no code' in place, facilitating a basis for which Building could make objectiv e judgments). Tim's suggestion that this will help 'little' rainwater harvesters purchasing fro m Home Depot legally get their RHS in place is erroneous – he has not been approached b y constituents to meet this need . Those systems are clearly being installed without any referenc e to anything (it is not illegal as there is no specific code). Respectfully Jenny Ferguso n 805 602 820 6 From :Jenny Ferguson [mailto :jennylferg@gmail .com ] Sent:Monday, October 18, 2010 7 :21 P M To :'Girvin, Tim ' Cc : 'Randy Dettmer, AIA'; 'anns@wallacegroup .us '; 'ScottB@wallacegroup .us '; 'jlmichael@rrmdesign .co m '; 'Peter Danciart - CRSA Architectur e '; 'info@sierraclubslo.org '; 'info@ecoslo .org'; 'jbunin@hbacc .org'; 'Rustin Messenger'; 'jcwilliams@co .slo .ca .us '; 'Henderson, Gary'; 'Armet, Robert';'Mladen Bandov ' Subject :ARCSA guidelines being made mandatory a bad ide a Tim, I'm sorry to hear that you will not be adjusting your position on the limit at which permitting wil l begin on rainwater harvesting systems for SLO above 250 gallons despite public comment urgin g otherwise . There is an additional pressing concern with your intention to codify the 38-page ARCS A guidelines . These are guidelines and are not meant to be ad hoc incorporated into code . Regulating all the aspects of the guidelines would mean an extensive permitting process , therefore expensive and create great hardship for rainwater harvesters wishing to go 'legal'. It i s a strong discouragement . In some cases the guidelines would not work . For example : section 3 .3 .2 describes how "a manhole cover should be installed on every tank". This would require say a 300 gallon tank t o have a manhole affixed to it – which is not feasible . Entry points should be secured but it shoul d not be mandatory to have a manhole cover. I just spoke with one of the co-authors of the ARCSA document, Tim Pope, and he confirme d that the guidelines are not appropriate for adoption as code . He will be calling you tomorrow to discuss . He can also b e reached on cell 360 317 4192 . I apologize for the lateness of bringing up this aspect . My initial response rejecting the idea o f the 250 gallon limit was after a quick read as I am up in Wa state (Tim Pope lives over on th e next island). Tim, please reconsider your position to 'get anything in place as that is better than nothing'. It i s much harder to shift code once put into place and it is a misapplication of council resources . I t would be much cleaner to make adjustments now . Jenny